Alternative to Master Plan Apporach.unlocked

5/21/2018 Alternative to Master Plan Apporach.unlocked

1/380

Introduction Chapter1

AlternativeApproachestoMasterPlan SchoolofPlanningandArchitecture 11

Chapter 1INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

The UN HABITAT Report of 2007 (the year the world became fifty-percent urban),

states that majority of human beings are and would be living in cities in future. It is estimated

that the urban population would increase to over 400 million by the year 2011 and 533

million by the year 2021. Urbanization is set to continue at a fast pace in the coming decades.

Present day cities are facing challenges of transformation and management with respect to

globalization, competitiveness, sustainability, climate change, livability and inclusiveness.

According to the UN-HABITAT 2009 Report, demographic expansion and climate change

poses an unprecedented challenge to cities.

Urban areas are considered the engines of productivity and growth in the country. This is

manifest in the increasing contribution of urban sector to national income. In 1950-51 the

contribution of urban sector to India's GDP was estimated at only 29 per cent, which

increased to 47 per cent in 1980-81 and is have risen to 74 per cent at present. The cities are

growing and developing very fast. Urbanisation is an important aspect of the process of

socio-economic development and is also closely connected with problems pertaining to

migration from villages to towns, small towns to metropolises, levels of living in rural and

urban areas. The positive role of urbanisation is often over-shadowed by the evident

deterioration in the physical environment and quality of life in the urban areas caused by

widening gap between demand and supply of shelter for different sections of the population,

essential services and infrastructure. This results from increasing population, pressure on

urban centres and lack of capability to respond to infrastructural needs. The mounting

unemployment rate and insignificant improvement in the poverty levels manifests in the

growth in slums in urban areas. Moreover the informal sector and the associated problems

exist. Unplanned expansion has become a defining feature of urban areas in todays

developing world. The transformation has a direct bearing on the strategies that need to be


2/380



adopted to combat the challenges. Cities need to organize, manage and facilitate growth in a

sustainable way apart from positioning themselves at global level.

The purpose of a Master Plan is to guide the process of planned development of an urban

area. The British town planning legislation has guided the process of master plans in India.

Traditional master plans have had the physical planning approach translated into spatial plans

i.e. envisaging spatial distribution of land uses for the cities in future. The plan includes the

space requirements for various uses and allocates land for the same. It is based on surveys

and studies on the present status and the future growth prospects, which direct the physical

development of the city. However in the last three decades, the master plans rarely could

achieve its targets. There were various impediments in the process. Master Plan as a tool for

development of cities have often been criticized for being restrictive and ineffective in terms

of process, content, implementation and monitoring programs. Additionally, the planning

process has also suffered from improper phasing of development, lack of financial support

and accountability, as well as inadequate monitoring or evaluation. The scope is confined to

broad proposals and allocation of land for various uses, as it is prepared with the objective of

guiding physical development. The plan is prepared envisioning development over a period

of 20-25 years, which is too long a duration considering the fast pace of development. The

vision statement and the demand assessment thereof do not keep pace with the real lifesituation i.e. the actual growth.

The city has been considered as a two dimensional entity whereas in reality there are more

than one dimension. The built form of the city, the socio-economic perspectives and the

political scenario are part of the city. The city is composed of people and ideally it should be

for the people and by the people. Traditional planning has neglected the social, political and

economic dynamics shaping the city and driving change, as were the many actors and

interests involved, and the probability of conflicting interest. The plan has been top-down

and has predominantly ignored the peoples opinions in assessing the needs, the demands and

the development scenarios. The plan was powerful and became an end in itself. Planning is a

continuous process involving not only plan preparation but also implementation. Due to

ineffective implementation of plan, planning proposals have become irrelevant and


3/380



meaningless. The discontinuity between plan preparation and plan implementation has

resulted in a widening gap between what has been proposed in master plan and what has.

Besides master plan approval is yet another cause of delay.

The 1stHabitat Summit on Failure of Master Planning in Urban India held in 2009 in Delhi

highlighted some of the key issues in the above respect such as no real needs assessment. The

ideas of livability and usability are largely ignored. The plan lacks stakeholder input and it is

too top-down. One size fits all approach, ignores unique cultural, economic and historical

identity of individual cities. The plans are too rigid and the pace of change in Indian cities

quickly renders the plans obsolete. There is no integration of center, state and municipal

planning efforts along with poor governance that impedes effective implementation. The

planning system has been unable to cope with the pace and manner of growth in Indian cities.

One of the fundamental premise of the Master plan is based on the western concept of

zoning which outlines a land-use pattern by dividing the city into zones. These zones are

seen as separate compartments, though with some interdependencies. Over the years, the

planning process has primarily focused only on expansion based strategies, often neglecting

the inner city areas which are a part of every Indian city. Our cities continue to swallow

agricultural hinterlands in this course of expansion.

The plan was also not linked to sectoral departments or to budgets and investments and the

institutional organisation and negotiations necessary to make it operable was seen as outside

of its scope. Master planning was also often separate from development control and did not

necessarily impact on these activities. In addition, both funds and institutional capacity to

give effect to the plans were lacking. The master plans had not paid any attention to linking

up of the plans to management and economic development. The positive role of urbanisation

is often over-shadowed by the evident deterioration in the physical environment and qualityof life in the urban areas caused by widening gap between demand and supply of shelter for

different sections of the population, essential services and infrastructure.

The Eleventh Five-year plan of our country has stressed on the need to address sustainability

and inclusion in our cities.


4/380



In the European context, spatial planning has shifted from focusing purely on land use

towards an emphasis on the spatial integration of sectors and policies. Strategic spatial

planning has become significant over the past decade as a way of shaping urban growth. In

contrast to master planning, there is a strong emphasis on inclusive stakeholder participation

processes, and planning focuses only on key strategic elements. New forms of master

planning focused on urban design have also emerged.

The challenge of reorienting the urbanisation process, thus, lies in overcoming the

infrastructural deficiencies and taking the best advantage of economic momentum inherent in

urbanisation. A proper urban planning development approach must have a participatory

planning process apart from addressing the spatial context of the investments in the city. The

link between various levels of plans and the chain of policies-plans-projects need to be

emphasized. The balance between collective well being of people and resource management

needs to be the basis for socio-economic growth and environmental monitoring. This calls for

constant updated information for decision support and effectuation. The GIS or geographic

information systems serves as an apt tool, and also a critical bridge between environmental

conditions and urban planning.

The advent of sustainable, inclusive cities calls for comprehensive, forward-looking

strategies in which a more bottom- up than top-down type of planning can have a major

positive role to play. This includes provision of basic infrastructure like water, sanitation,

power and public transport, a lack of which is a significant factor behind urban poverty in the

developing world. If urban planning is to rise to this challenge, central and local government

must take on stronger roles, according to the report. Reformed urban planning systems must

fully and unequivocally address climate change, rapid urbanization, poverty, informality and

safety, and do so in a context-responsive way.

These efforts must be based on well-articulated national urban policies and adequate

capacity- building, which together must overcome the fragmented. Instead of being

manipulated by local elites, regulatory systems must adhere to the principle of equality

under the law. In their new role they must also be both protective and developmental as

well as participatory and socially inclusive.


5/380



In response to these critiques, new approaches to planning have emerged. New forms of

planning are encapsulated in the Global Planners Network document on Reinventing

Planning, which defines principles for planning. These include, inter alia:

focus on sustainability:

integration between sectors and with budgets:

participatory planning, bringing in a wide range of stakeholders:

understanding markets and producing credible plans, backed by public investmentwhere appropriate:

recognition of the reality of informal settlements and slums:

development of contextually appropriate, affordable, strategic and effective forms ofplanning and land use management: and

pro-poor and inclusive planning , recognizing diversity.

It is in this context, that it becomes essential to review the planning approach of our

country and arrive at alternative approaches so as to address the emerging scenario of

new challenges for planning our cities.

1.2 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India had commissioned a research

study of Alternate approaches to Master Plan to the School of Planning and Architecture in

April 2009. The scope of the project includes critical assessment of the Master Plans and

suggestions pertaining to alternative planning approaches to address the citys emerging

issues.


6/380



1.3 STUDY OBJECTIVES

1. To identify indicators of appraisal for Master Plans and other Plans

2. To critically analyze the relevance and assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the

Master Plan of the identified case study cities in the transforming economic and social

environment

3. To suggest alternative planning approaches and framework that can address the city

planning issues and would achieve efficient, sustainable, inclusive development.


7/380

Introduction

AlternativeApproachestoMasterPlan SchoolofPlanningandA

1.4 RESEARCH FRAMEWORK


8/380

BackgroundStudies Chapter2

AlternativeApproachestoMasterPlan SchoolofPlanningandArchitecture 2-1

Chapter 2 BACKGROUND STUDIES

2.1INDIAN PLANNING APPROACHES

2.1.1 A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

India has a long history in the development of planned settlements. Guidelines for

their built form are well documented from as early as the Vedic era. At that time, settlements

focused on the shrine, citadel and granary. They had a defined perimeter, often walled for

security and were complementary to a large number of spontaneous settlements of the

territory. This scenario is also true of all great ancient civilisations and where often, planned

settlements were synonymous with planned colonisation. Perimeters, when expanded,

incorporated also market gardens and grazing grounds to ensure against long periods of seize

but almost without exception, ground plans or land plans were corollaries to conceptualised

built form. This form however did not apply to the habitation sectors of plebeians and even

of higher income groups and which grew without ground rules and as organically as

spontaneous settlements. Often, such sectors offered better maintained living than in planned

sectors and ever since there have been debates on the intensity of intervention needed insettlements planned for occupation over a period of time.

With improving inter-settlement mobility and concomitant aggrandisement, several

innovative and larger planned settlements emerged. Even then, the horizons of sanitised built

form were predictable within the framework of settlement maintenance and managerial

optimality. The likes of Rome, Paris and London were few.

The industrial revolution, among other crisis actions, necessitated interventions through

public utilities as essential and inseparable part of settlement liveability. Ventilation, potable

water, safe disposal of liquid and solid waste, fire safety, drained lands and green lungs were

the prime catch words in an integrated process of both, redevelopment and development

within settlement or town limits. This soon caught on in India where the first efforts in

modern town planning originated with the appointment of sanitary commissions in 1864 in

each of the three presidencies of Madras, Bengal and Bombay, and which in due course

became the State departments of Public Health Engineering and/or of Health.


9/380



It was from this period that local government systems for sanitising crowded urban

settlements were gradually being institutionalised in India. At the same time, insulated

sanitised towns and civil lines became forerunners of Improvement Trusts. This interplay is

best viewed in Bombay which got its Municipal Corporation in 1888 and its Improvement

Trust in 1898. The Improvement Trust Act was modeled not only on that of the Glasgow

City Improvement Act but also on the Bombay Port Trust Act of 1873. The formation of the

Trust was precipitated by the plague epidemic of 1896 and so arrest insanitary conditions, the

mandate included clearance of blighted areas, street improvement schemes, provision of

housing for displaced persons (through 4 storeyed tenements called chawls) and plots with

development control in reclaimed or other lands.

Under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act of 1888, building regulations were introduced

to ensure adequate light and ventilation and limits on the quantum of built space on land. It

however, did not regulate the type of uses permitted both in development and redevelopment

zones. The need for orderly growth emerged at the turn of the century through debate

between the city fathers, industrialists and administrators and this led to the Bombay Town

Planning Bill of 1908 which became a provincial Act in 1915. A land use plan within city

limits was now possible if the Municipal Corporation asked for it but interestingly opposition

to land use zoning came from the land owning elite.

It is important to note that within the geographic configuration of India as today, the

population in 1901 was around 240 million of whom about 22 million lived in a little over

2200 urban settlements and the rest in nearly 5,70,000 rural settlements. Only Calcutta had

more than one million inhabitants and overall land was never considered a constraint,

especially for peripheral settlement expansion.

From the beginning of the century several improvement trusts were created notably Mysore

in 1903, Calcutta in 1911, Hyderabad in 1912 and Lucknow in 1919. The one in Hyderabad

was unique because it over spilled (through a fireman) for two Kilometres all round the city

limits. The one in Bombay also looked beyond the linear city for providing serviced land but

in 1933 its functions were taken over by the Municipal Corporation after an indictment for

mismanagement that pushed up the price of serviced plots in the high income Backbay

Reclamation Scheme. The Municipal Corporation could afford to take over development

functions of the Trust due to a comfortable fiscal base which gave them confidence for


10/380



ground level actions without State provincial support. By 1960, most other trusts were taken

over by State appointed development authorities. The Delhi Improvement Trust which was

created in 1937 to counteract overcrowding was replaced in 1957 by a single land

development authority to arrest land speculation.

In 1915, the sociologist planner, Patrick Geddes on an invitation first from the Madras

Government and later by princely states and other presidencies, recommended

implementable Town Planning Schemes through beneficiary participation and within

regional frameworks. This was followed by the appointment of H.V. Lancaster as Town

Planning Advisor to the Government of India. Among his inputs was a concept plan for the

capital of India at New Delhi which blended with overspill growth of crowded Paharganj. In

contrast, the implemented hierarchal plan of Edwin Lutyens, the landscape architect was for

total insularity and for perpetuating imperial grandeur. This built space was occupied with

amazing ease by national level decision makers in the post 1947 era and today all

transformations (planned or otherwise ) to the imperial plan have been stopped through an

administrative diktat, despite rapid densification and redensification all round.

The term Master Plan as a genre for a time bound two dimensional framework for three

dimensional planned growth came into usage in this era. It emerged through enabling State

(provincial) town planning legislations notably in the erstwhile presidencies of Bombay

(1915) and Madras (1920) and also the erstwhile princely states of Hyderabad (1916) and

Mysore (1917). One of the better projected Master Plans is the one for Hyderabad after the

Musi river floods where an administrative visionary, Mirza Ismail with the help of the

legendary engineer, M. Vishweshwaraya restored Hyderabads regional primacy through an

implementable Master Plan. It, inter alia, studied natural water courses as a main input for

growth and at the same time catered for such force majeure situations through heavy State

expenditure but for the benefit of all sections of the population.

In the thirties, Otto Konigsberger, an architect planner was advisor to the erstwhile State of

Mysore and to other groups in India for directing urban form and growth. This implemented

plan for new Bhubaneswar as a State capital was also called a Master Plan but for a new area

of designed growth. It was not processed under Town Planning Acts just as the designed

capital of India by Lutyens a quarter century earlier and which was not referred to as a

Master Plan and was not processed under a Town Planning Act. This is also true of


11/380



Chandigarh quasi designed holistically in the hope that it would be liveable in a predictable

manner twenty or thirty years down the line from that time.

The term Master Plan received wide attention in India with the outline Master Plan for

Greater Bombay in 1948 attributed to a team under the then city engineer, Modhak and to a

planning consultant, Albert Mayer. The Plan offered an umbrella to land use plans of wards

that constituted the Municipal Corporation of Bombay and for projects through Town

Planning Schemes. It specified optimality in new, reconstructed or upgraded built space or on

just urban land through expensive social and network infrastructure. It gave credence to the

guarded outward spread of the serviced city and for which resilience was built in thanks to

Bombays linear pattern. It however, had no real legal validity and was outdated by 1953.

The Master Plan was prepared at a time, when Europe was processing planned overspill

from the core to the fringe of a municipal entity or of contiguous municipalities (despite

varying success in new settlements development. More importantly the mindboggling rush to

primate settlements of the new liberated nations had not yet made its presence felt in India. In

retrospect, therefore, the outline Master Plan for Greater Bombay was for all purposes an

incremental growth plan with no major urban managerial crises to deal with. The context of

the Metropolitan Region Plan was a long way off and even the 1941 Abercrombie Plan for

Greater London offered no real replicable lessons.

In 1951, the population of India was about 357 million of which nearly 62 million lived in a

little more than 3,000 urban settlements and the rest in about the same number of rural

settlements as in 1901. Bombay, Delhi, Madras and Hyderabad joined Calcutta in the one

million plus bracket, referred to as Metropolitan areas in the census of 1991. The rush to

urban areas had thus just started through expansion of existing settlements, especially the

larger ones, which were best placed for secondary and tertiary sector growth. This growth

was facilitated through socio-economic investment oriented development added to law and

other functions of new federated union of States and Union Territories. In this liberated

setup, elected citizens to parliament and assemblies sought visible development within their 5

year term. In this process, the new philosophy of contexts and frameworks for planned

growth was given a short shift and a series of uncoordinated projects mushroomed across the

length and breadth of India. The gap between socio-economic investments oriented


12/380



development on the one hand and spatial frameworks on the other widened when what was

really required was for the two to work in tandem.

In the West, the canvas for integrated growth was easier as post war reconstruction was

undertaken within a framework of zero or minus population growth rate. In the new liberated

nations, however, high population growth rates occurred along with the rush to larger urban

centres. Nowhere has this explosion or rather implosion (in Mumfordian language) been

more apparent than in Delhi where due to the partition of the country, decadal growth rates of

113 per cent and 63 per cent respectively were recorded between 1941 and 1951 and between

1951 and 1961, respectively. In the late 1980s, the government constituted National

Commission on Urbanisation stated that local government in India was not equipped to

manage urban services beyond a decadal growth rate of 30 per cent. A total breakdown of

services, therefore, precipitated the Master Plan for Delhi and which became legal in 1962.

This plan was preceded by an outline plan in 1958 and which indicated the directions of

spatial growth, primarily for purposes of advance action in terms of network infrastructure.

All new areas earmarked for urban use in the 1962 plan were to be acquired, serviced and

redistributed through auction or allotment with differential rates of interest. The plan, which

was the first of comprehensive plans in the country, transcended municipal boundaries and

ushered in the concept of city regions by interfacing with ring towns but within commuting

distance. The Plan was facilitated by three interlinking enactments of that era-namely the

Central Slum Improvement Act, 1956, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi Act, 1957 and the

Delhi Development Act, 1957.

The Master Plan for Delhi was prepared through Ford Foundation assistance by professionals

from the USA and the UK along with Indian counterparts qualified from those countries. The

Plan served as a prototype for a large number of Plans by States which did not have

traditional planned legislation support till that time. These plans were sustained by central

encouragement towards the socialisation of land and a liberal use of the Land Acquisition

Act of 1894. Over a period of time, however, the efficacy of rigid land use plans at the

metropolitan and city levels, bolstered by even more rigid and time consuming zonal and

sub-zonal plans have been questioned in favour of the flexible structure or advocacy plans for

guiding development and planned investments through projects. From Delhi, the Ford

Foundation was invited to Calcutta (now Kolkata), where the Delhi approach was all but


13/380



reversed in favour of integrated projects in a loose framework called Basic Development

Plan. The term Master Plan was being equated to rigidity and was from this period being

dominated by the term Development Plan and which enabled the preparation of structure

plans, advocacy plans, and guided development plans and which were being equated to

flexibility.

It was the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 which referred to the preparation of a

Development Plan as a broader entity than just a Master Plan. After intensive surveys and

consultations, the Development Plan for Greater Bombay was sanctioned in 1964. This plan

was detailed and effective but it precipitated haphazard development on the periphery of

Greater Bombay. The need for a metropolitan region plan accordingly surfaced where the

boundaries of the region had to be fixed on the degree of physical and economic unity of an

area. The Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act of 1966 paved the way for the

publishing of the Bombay Metropolitan Region Plan 1970 and for a flexible structure plan

for directing investments in an integrated exercise of development and redevelopment over a

20 year period. This was largely due to the fact that the Corporation had not fully adjusted

itself in the use and development or redevelopment of densely parcelled land for flexible

metropolitan strategies by a State appointed statutory authority. The conflict between

Municipal Corporations with defined jurisdictions and Development Authorities with wider

adjustable jurisdictions is visible in all metropolitan areas and in several large cities. This

vexing issue has been resolved by the 74th

Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992 which gives

added teeth to local bodies.

Through this brief historic perspective, it may be noted that India has come a long way from

projects aimed at postponing decay to Master Plans with boundaries limited to urban areas

and then to Comprehensive Development Plans for more than one contiguous local authority.

Such plans have been prepared for many cities and towns and are being made available for

all urban settlements with population over 20,000.

2.1.2 TERMINOLOGY

The planning profession emerged in response to the repercussions associated with the

growth of cities, i.e. increased density, pressure on existing infrastructure, rising demand of

services and utilities, decay of inner cities, etc. Local bodies at the city level recognized that


14/380



they had a responsibility for contributing to the safety, health and welfare of their citizens.

Plans were formulated by the town referred to by various terminologies i.e. Master Plan,

Structure Plan, Perspective Plan, Development Plan, Strategic Plan, etc. The approach of the

plan, the contents and the level at which the problems have been addressed also vary. Plans

were formulated at various levels, for the city as a whole, for a part of the city i.e. zone, for a

neighbourhood and/or community and for the region or the hinterland of the city. A detailed

discussion on the typology of plans has been given as follows.

Master Plan

A Master Plan is a long-term plan prepared with the purpose of planned development

of cities. The document includes the space requirements for various uses and allocates land

for the same. It also spells out the policies, guidelines as per the vision, goal and objectives of

the plan. The plan is based on comprehensive surveys and studies on the present status and

the future growth prospects which direct the physical development of the city. The

implementation of master plan facilitates the orderly and planned development of cities in a

sustainable manner, which would ultimately result in good governance.

Planning legislations enacted by most of the states do provide for preparation of Master Plans

as an instrument to promote orderly growth and development of urban centres. Under this

premise large numbers of Master Plans or Development Plans have been prepared. Their

number has been estimated to be over1200 in 1995. The earliest Master Plans prepared were

for cities like Bombay, Delhi, Calcutta and Madras. Over the years, the growth of these cities

has been largely governed by the stipulations made in their master plans.

The focus of the Master Plan is primarily on land use planning. The Master Plans are detailed

out through zonal plans and layout plans. A Master Plan is a statutory instrument for guiding

planned development and regulating improvement of towns and cities over a period of 20-25years and contributes to development conceptually rather than being operational. The Master

Plan approach has its limitations which are discussed in the subsequent section.

Zonal Plan

The Zonal Plans detail out the policies of the Master Plan and pertain to a zone as identified

by the Master Plan. The development schemes and layout plans indicating various use

premises conform to the Zonal Plans. The formulation of the Zonal Plan is stipulated to be


15/380



within one year as is the case regarding Master Plan of Delhi. In the absence of a Zonal Plan

of any area, the development is in accordance with the provisions of the Master Plan.

Structure Plan

The Planning Advisory Group Report of 1965, United Kingdom, came up with a new

planning approach i.e. the Development Plan that included the Structure Plan and the Local

Plan. In India, Structure Plans were worked out for cities like Kolkata, Chennai etc. The

Structure Plan is the planning framework for an area and includes the distribution of the

population, activities, the relationship between land use patterns and development activities

and the network and systems of communication, utilities and services respectively. The Plan

is not restricted to any time period. Structure Plan is a spatial plan that delineates parts of the

city for different uses. The Plan does not strictly define the land use but gives the objectives

for deciding the land use. The land uses thus assigned depends on interpretation of the

objectives. The Structure Plan is a document containing broad based policies or proposals

which are likely to have a significant effect on the structure of the area, or help to conserve

an aspect of the structure. The Plan also includes the surveys supporting the plan, evaluation

and selection of alternatives of arriving at the plan. The Structure Plan need to synchronize

with the national and regional policies and has to be integrated with the structure plans for

adjoining areas; it means that aims, policies and proposals in a Structure Plan must be

coordinated with those for the adjoining areas. It provides a basis for coordinating decisions

between various committees of the planning authority and district councils who deal with

various components of development and other public bodies likely to be concerned with

important aspects of the plan. Since the plan deals with broad based policies and proposals, it

is flexible and parts of the plan can be amended while working out the details to adjust to

unforeseen situations at the time of plan preparation.

Perspective Plan

Perspective plan is a long term plan (20-25 years) that provides goals, policies, strategies and

general programmes of the urban local authority. The plan covers long term policies

regarding spatial, economic development, development of infrastructure and resource

mobilization and a policy framework to the short term plans. The basic purpose of a


16/380



Perspective Plan is to provide policy framework for further detailing and it serves as a guide

for urban local authority in preparation of the Development plan.It provides a background to

the shorter term plans and serves as a guide for urban local bodies in preparation of the

Development Plan. The components of the Perspective Plan are spatial and economic

development policies, strategies and programmes of the local authority. The main function of

the Perspective Plans is to be in line with the Government of Indias objectives.

Development Plan

A development plan is a medium term plan (generally 5 years) prepared within the

framework of the approved perspective plan, providing to the people the comprehensive

proposals for socio-economic and spatial development of the urban settlement indicating the

manner in which the use of the land and development therein shall be carried out by the local

authority and other agencies.

Annual Plan

An annual plan conceived within the framework of development plan, is a plan containing

the details of new and ongoing projects that the local authority intends to implement during

the respective financial year and for which necessary fiscal resources shall be mobilized

through plan funds and other sources.

Comprehensive Development Plan

With regard to the above mentioned lacuna in Master Plans, the need for preparation of

detailed development plans has been realized. The development plans are worked on a

reduced time span as compared to the master plans, which to some extent has increased the

effectiveness of the plans. Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) is one such effort

anchored on the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission, which aims at creating

economically productive, efficient, equitable and responsive cities. A CDP is both a

perspective as well as a vision document for future development of city. It defines the

potential of city and reflects its unique attributes in terms of comparative and competitive

advantages, values and preferences of the citys residence. It thus is a detailed strategic

document, which is done in consultation among the key stakeholders. The CDP also provides


17/380



a city investment plan in lines of estimate of the level of investment. The preparation of CDP

is done keeping in mind the pattern of population growth and its special spread within the

city together with its economic base. The CDP includes the key sectors that drive the citys

economy. An integral focus of the CDP is a detailed infrastructure profile of the city. It

measures the gap between the demand and supply of different infrastructure services,

indicating the adequacy or inadequacy of infrastructural services in terms of coverage,

quantity and quality, thus attempting to identify the factors responsible for inadequate

development of infrastructure services. The CDP also focuses on techniques for

strengthening municipal governance, financial accounting and other bottle necks. Whereas

the emphasis of CDP is to integrate financial profile of a city plan, its investment plan with

that of the infrastructure profile of the city.

Although many Master Plans have been prepared, the results have been rather indifferent.

Based on the various experiences of preparing a Master Plan, a critique of the present

practice is presented in the following section.

2.1.3 CRITIQUE OF MASTER PLAN

Over a period of time, it has generally been felt that the Master Plans have not been

able to solve urban problems as they are unable to keep pace with urban growth. The gap

between plan, growth, and development need has been ever widening. Despite the fact that

major planning inputs have been directed towards the orderly planning and development of

urban centres in general and large cities in particular, these centres continue to be the

embodiments of concentration of poverty, misery and deplorable living conditions and are

growing in the most haphazard and disorderly manner. More than half of metro cities

population is the victim of most degraded living conditions and worst kind of pollution e.g.

slums. There is over crowding in building and overloading of services. Cities have

generated most brutal and inhuman living conditions for its residents. Cities and towns are

thus in crisis. The crisis has lead to increased level of operational inefficiency of urban

centres and inefficient use of natural and manmade resources leading to enormous loss to the

nation and inhabitants. Larger cities are growing at an alarming pace whereas smaller towns

are fast declining. City growth and development is assuming complex dimension beyond

normal comprehensions and controls. What is the root cause of these urban maladies? What


18/380



could be the ways and means to stop the degeneration of urban quality of life? How cities can

be made efficient, so as to enable them to generate resources for the emancipation of India?

These are the few questions which have haunted the urban planners and the development and

management agencies. Apart from Planners, Politicians and Bureaucrats have also voiced

concerns that though the basic concept behind Master Plan is laudable, it has failed to

achieve the desired results. On the outset, the Master Plan has been criticised primarily on

three aspects the preparation process, the contents of the Plan and implementation. Reasons

for such failure have been identified to include the following:-

i) Difficulty in projecting population, economic growth, social change, infrastructure

requirements etc. for a horizon of 20-25 years. A Master Plan which tries to predict

the end state fails to see the dynamic nature of human settlements, and becomes

rigid.

ii) Plans have been treated as advisory, rather than mandatory. Thus there is a lack of

statutory support to the Master Plan. The most important of these is perhaps the lack

of an adequate land policy in the absence of which, land acquisition becomes a long

and tedious process involving legal hurdles. (Calcutta is a notable example of

lengthy land acquisition processes hampering development.)

iii) Lack of coordination with the economic plan. The Five Year Plans allocate

resources for different sectors but are not generally location specific; conversely

Master Plans often fail to take into consideration sectoral outlays and targeted

growth potential of economic sectors within the urban plan region.

iv) Physical domain of the plan is often restricted to the urban boundary. This leaves out

the edges or the urban fringe, often the most dynamic areas of urban growth. By

extension, this also necessarily implies a lack of concern for rural urban linkages.

The example: Laldora or Abadi lands in Delhi.

v) Plans are often idealistic and beyond the resources of the local authority. They suffer

from a lack of financial programming and budgeting.

vi) Norms and standards are often borrowed from other plans and do not represent local

conditions. Thus standards become inappropriate or very high. (Perhaps, the most

glaring example of this is the Himachal Pradesh Bye laws which seem to be

almost a carbon copy of DDAs.)


19/380



vii) Lack of coordination between various implementing agencies.

viii)Implementation not worked out in detail, especially in temporal scheme with phasing

diagrams detailed to zonal / local levels.

ix) Lack of concern for migrants and the informal sector. Squatter settlements are

deprived of essential services and rights to land ignored, because overwhelming

attention is given to landuse controls of plans which did not envisage migration, or

at least, not in the massive numbers currently prevailing.

The publication by the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for the Asia and

the Pacific entitled Guidelines: Sub-national area planning and sustainable development of

secondary cites in countries of Asia and Pacific - a methodological approach also lists out

the following as the drawbacks associated with the traditional Master Planning approach:

- Large master plans are static in nature and take very long time to prepare

- Master plans do not provide guidelines on the phasing or techniques of

implementation

- Master plans do not evaluate the costs of the developments they propose or the

methods of financing them

-

Master plans are often based on unrealistic appraisal of the economic potential of

planning areas and, in some cases, on unrealistic needs

- Master plans seldom provide a compelling rationale for detailed land use and land

use regulation or control

- Community or elected representatives or NGOs are seldom meaningfully involved

in the planning process.

Planning ProcessThe Planning Process consists of the following stages;

Ist StageDevelopment aims and Objectives; the aims and objectives formulation exercise

comprises the following four steps:

1. Identification of values cherished by the people, politicians and other groups of

people;

2. Identification of aims incorporating the values;


20/380



3. Identification of criteria that further defines each aim to form basis for formulation

of objectives; and

4. Formulation of objectives which could be further defined as design objectives and

implementation.

2nd

Stage; After identification of development aims and objectives, the next stage in the

process of planning is identification of projected requirements of various activities,

supporting infrastructure and land as the basic input for plan formulation. It is suggested that

a Development Integration Committee be constituted. The function of this committee is

suggested to be to:

1. Discuss and advise on development aims and objectives

2. Provide input on existing conditions, priorities and major programmes of each

department to form part of projected requirements; and

3. Ensure coordination of inter-departmental interactions and cooperation pertaining to

plan formulation and integration.

3rd

Stage; Plan formulation

Plan formulation consists of drawing up of alternative concepts of planning the settlement,

taking into account:

1. aims and objectives

2. projected requirements

3. planning principles/theories

4. planning techniques

5. norms and standards

It is followed by a process of evaluation of the alternatives having regard to achievement of

aims and objectives; judicious utilization of land resources; environmental and fiscal

resources sustainability; and urban design quality.


21/380



4th

Stage; Plan Approval Process

Following the spirit of the 74th

CAA, the plan approval process should be decentralized as

follows;

Table 2.1: Approving Authority for various levels of Plans

Plan Approving Authority

Perspective Plan State Government

Development Plan Municipal Council/Corporation

Annual Plan Municipal Council/Corporation

Schemes/Projects Municipal Planner

Source: 74thConstitutional Amendment Act

5th

Stage; Implementation

Implementation of development plans is generally through annual plans and projects. The

various steps for effective implementation include:

1. Formulation of the annual plan and identification of projects for implementation

within the framework of approved development plan

2. Identification of various agencies responsible for development promotion andmanagement

3. Actions for implementation which include;

Public sector interventions

Private sector actions and

Joint Venture or public - private partnership.

Plan Preparation

It would be desirable to closely look at the mechanism of plan preparation in the context of

effectiveness and usefulness of Master Plan as an instrument to guide and channelise growth

and development of the urban centres. In the Indian context, plan preparation is often vested

in State Authorities which do not have deep knowledge of local conditions and accordingly

the city problems, structure, potential and areas requiring focus are not properly reflected in

the plan.


22/380



In most of the cases accurate and appropriate base maps of cities are not available and the

Master Plans are prepared on base maps which are obsolete, outdated, inaccurate and do not

contain vital information required for proper plan preparation. Master Plan documents

prepared on inaccurate base map hampers its effective implementation. It may be one of

major causes of present malady which face our urban areas visavis their Master Plans.

Present system of planning is based on purely population projections. Attempts to restrict the

size of population of the city have created numerous complications in the city developmental

process. In order to make Master Plan really dynamic, capable of taking care of vibrant and

ever-changing economic forces it would be desirable that city plans is not based on restricted

population projections. In fact plan should have an inbuilt flexibility to take care of any

unforeseen changes that may occur in the city. Accordingly city population projection must

be supplemented by its economic potential i.e. capacity to generate employment etc., so that

it ensures gainful employment to its residents. Planners must also understand that city growth

cannot be stopped and the concept of a finite city is a myth. Accordingly, city plan must

provide for ever-growing and ever-expanding city which is capable enough to provide quality

of life to its inhabitants.

Process of Master Plan preparation also needs to be closely examined. Since the Plan is a

document essentially meant for promoting the orderly growth of urban centres and achieving

the welfare of its inhabitants, accordingly it will be desirable to ensure peoples effective

involvement. Planners must understand that cities are built by people and by planners and

cities exist for promoting the physical, social, economic welfare of people at all stages of

plan preparation would be a pre requisite for ensuring success to the plans and orderly

growth of cities and towns. Thus present system of calling objections on planning proposals

is highly defective and needs to be totally changed. In fact, it would be viable to adopt a

mechanism of wider consultations. On the analogy and pattern of preparation of Union

Budget city planners must initiate discussion with all sections of society including chambers

of commerce and industry, ordinary citizens, interest groups, NGOs, groups involved in

voluntary efforts to improve the city and other public and private sector agencies which from

an integral part of any city structure. This would help in crystallizing and needs and

aspirations of people about the present and future scenario of the city and should make

planning process much more realistic and closer to the vision of its residents.


23/380



City plans do not accord any recognition to the informal sector, which despite the act

provides employment to number of people and is an integral part of city economy but still

considered as illegal. Ignoring the ground realities and planning without considering the

needs and requirements of this sector has lead to number of distortions emerging in the city.

The normal procedures of Legal framework providing for preparation of Master Plan are

cumbersome and time consuming. Law pertaining to Master Plan are not simple and they do

not allow adequate freedom to planners in plan preparation and plan interpretation. The law

does not have defined timelines at all stages and therefore the plan is not prepared on time

bound basis and should cut down all possible delays. Such a format will enable not only

speedier plan preparation but also their easy interpretation and effective implementation.

Plan Approval

Plan approval is as crucial as plan preparation and plan implementation. Delays in plan

approval have resulted in defeating the very purpose of Master Plans. Bombay Municipal

Corporation started reviewing the first Master Plan of Bombay in 1977. Draft Plan was

submitted to State government in 1985. In 1989, twelve years after the plan preparation, the

State government was still considering it. In most of the case, Master Plans become

operational after they are approved by the State government and due to long gap in plan

preparation and plan approval, a lot of unauthorized construction takes place in the area and

the city grows without a plan. By the time plan is approved, bulk of development has taken

place without the benefit of planning approval. Meanwhile those occupying the illegal

squatter settlements suffer severe hardships because of lack of infrastructure and services, as

well as uncertainty over their tenure rights, environmental conditions in and around the city

deteriorate rapidly with high degree of atmosphere and water pollution. Thus the city reels

under enormous developmental pressures. This could be avoided if gap between plan

preparation and plan approval is minimized and plans are made operational form the day

intention to prepare plan is notified. However, efforts need to be made that city development

does not suffer on the premise that plan document is still to be approved.


24/380



Plan Implementation

The most important thing to understand is that Planning is a continuous process which

involves not only plan preparation but also includes plan approval and plan implementation.

Thus planning is not a one-dimensional exercise but a multidimensional approach involving

multipronged action to achieve the end results. In India rootcause of urban maladies have

been divorcing of plan preparation from plan implementation. Unless and until ways and

means are found to ensure effective implementation of plans, planning proposals would

become irrelevant and meaningless and plan document would be rendered ineffective. Plan

implementation would require earmarking of appropriate resources keeping in view the

development and investment requirements of area envisaged under the Master Plan. This has

so far been absent in India and thus, over the years, dichotomy has emerged between what

has been proposed in the Master Plan and what has happened on the ground. In large number

of cases investment opportunities have been made use of in contradiction to Master Plan

proposals which have lead to the emergence of developmental trends in the directions

contrary to that of Master Plans. It would be important to understand that city growth is

largely guided by the economic forces but economic forces are the outcome of investment

pattern adopted for a city. If investment strategy goes contrary to Master Plan indications

chaos is sure to prevail. Lack of financial resources on one hand and absence of dovetailing

of physical planning with fiscal planning has been largely responsible for lopsided and

unplanned growth of our urban areas. Orderly growth of urban centres would accordingly

call for making available adequate resources and adoption of investment strategy in

accordance with the direction indicated in the Master Plan proposals for its effective

implementation.

Plan implementation also would call for providing a legal backing to the plan document so as

to make it enforceable and mandatory. In most of the states like Punjab, Haryana, etc., there

is no legal framework for preparation and implementation of Master Plans and accordingly

these plans have assumed advisory role which have more often than not been conveniently

ignored by city and State authorities. Thus creating an appropriate legal framework would be

a prerequisite in ensuring effectiveness of Master Plan and development plan.

Not merely creating a legal framework will ensure effectiveness of a Master Plan but it has

to be supported by creating an effective and efficient machinery equipped with technical and


25/380



other managerial resources and powers which would see that no distortion of Master Plan

proposals take place at the ground level. In most cases these implementing agencies are

conspicuous by their absence and where ever they exist they are not adequately equipped.

Action in this area would also be urbanity called for to ensure orderly growth.

Political will and administrative efficiency will largely govern and ensure orderly growth of

our cities and accordingly all Master Plans must be supported by local and State political will

so that it is accepted by one and all as a catalyst fort rational growth of urban centres. This

would help in ensuring effectiveness of Master Plan document in the long run.

Involvement of planners in the process of plan implementation would be a vital step in

ensuring efficacy of Master Plans. Planners have only been assigned the role of planning and

implementation is more often than not vested with agencies which are totally divorced from

planning inputs. Thus planning and implementation occurs in water tight compartments

without any co ordination and accordingly plan and ground realities which emerge over the

years are totally contradictory. Creation of effective linkages between planning and

implementation would heap in not only making planning mire realistic and closer to ground

realities but would go a long way in ensuring effectiveness of Master Plan as an instrument

meant for promoting orderly growth of our urban centres.

There are many criticisms that the Master Plan has received from various experts in the

planning field. These include the Town and Country Planning Organization (TCPO) of the

Government of India and the Institute of Town Planners, India (ITPI). A brief discussion of

the issues identified and recommendations given by these organizations with reference to the

Master Planning approach has been given as follows.

The TCPO had organized a workshop on the Master Plan Approach: Efficacy and

Alternatives in 1997 to discuss the inadequacies of the Master Plan and give

recommendations accordingly in order to improve the Planning framework. The report

identified a number of relevant issues in this context with respect to the Master Plan

approach, its implementation and management; and finally alternatives to the approach.

The salient features of the practices of Master Plan approach in various parts of the country

and abroad at that time are summarized below.


26/380



The Master Plan approach based on British system underwent drastic change in the

mid sixties and after the evolution of planning approach in theoretical concept,

quantitative approach, models, simulation exercises and forecasting methods and

computer applications were gradually adopted by planners.

Majority of the Indian cities depicted the picture of unplanned urban outrages. It was

generally observed that such state of affairs in cities were not because the planners

were unaware of the advances in planning techniques abroad, but rather the

difficulties lay in the necessity for overhauling the institutional framework so that

new methods could be introduced and implemented.

It was realised that the sequence of development was as crucial as the plan itself.

There was no necessity to change the basic Master Plan system but a separate wing

for plan implementation and enforcement would prove to be a better institutional

arrangement.

The requirement for accurate mapping for plan preparation at various levels was

stressed. Suggestions were that the base maps of the towns should be delinked from

the cumbersome security procedure and should be easily available so as to quicken

the plan preparation process. Each State could establish urban and regionalinformation system cells which would take care of mapping requirements of the

planning exercises.

The plan making exercise was seen as a long drawn process that did not take the

implications of the land market into account. The public participation in plan

preparation exercise was ineffective and there was general lack of monitoring

mechanism.

The planning process was required to be decentralised. Conflicts in the role of

different acts and agencies at local level were to be resolved in time with the ground

realities. Land use and zoning regulation were considered to be too rigid causing

hindrances in development.

For planning of town the parameters like traffic and transportation, threshold limits

of resources like drinking water, management of services like drainage, refuse

collection, sanitation, land holding capacity, financial capability of the organisation,

environmental issues were required to be considered comprehensively and critically.


27/380



The subject of town planning received a very low priority in the entire political and

administrative set up, despite the urban sector contributing nearly 60% of GDP.

The existing approach of the Master Plan had an overemphasis on the land use

contents of the plan. The need was to have closer integration between infrastructures

particularly telecom system, sanitation and other regional network. Since Master

Plan is not prepared within the framework of Five Year plan of the State it remains

non-plan which has low priority. Duration of plan should be curtailed from 20-25

years to 5-10 years as being practiced in other countries.

The present approach of Master Plan was considered highly conceptual and lacking

operational mechanism. It was conceived as a pre-emptive document based on the

material and information which is subject to verification on long intervals. The

theoretical approach should be used to devise a pragmatic framework. Theory is an

instrument by which plan can be made practical.

It was observed that the Laws and Acts needed to be updated to allow to incorporate

the fundamental institutional changes, the political ethos, liberalisation and de

licensing.

Regarding the Implementation and Management of Master Plans, the focus is on the set up

for implementation and management of Master Plan in the country. The following major

points have been brought out and are summarised below:

Preparation of plan involves about 10% of the work whereas implementation role is

90% in the plan and hence the crux of the plan is in its implementation.

The implementation of plan depends mainly on the political set up and the people

themselves as there is no effective way to device the aspiration/needs of the people.

The Delhi Development Act has no provision for regularly reviewing the Master

Plan

It was strongly stated that the planned approach to urban development needs to be

strengthened. The models followed in the advanced countries having cities without

plans are not suitable in Indian conditions. The need of the hour is to devise flexible

plans with short term perspective to cater to the political climate and changes in the

aspiration of the people. A strong planning body should be established at centre and


28/380



State levels to guide the preparation of plans by the local authorities as envisaged

under 74th

Constitution Amendment Act. Plans prepared by local bodies in close

cooperation of the line departments would be easy to implement. Perspective Plans

for a longer duration is not conducive for right implementation as the political

thinking changes and also change the public aspiration over a time and hence all

these plans are to be rolled over. Resources around the town should be taken into

consideration and on that basis some activities should be proposed for the area.

The plans and schemes should reflect the implications of liberalisation policies of

the government, incentive zoning measures and the performance controls to judge

their implementation process. The use of latest techniques of Geographic

Information system was proposed to be helpful in monitoring the implementation of

plan. Plan implementation should keep margin for unprecedented developments that

happen as a result of International Games like Asiad and South Asian Games in

different cities. In implementation of plan, values of the majority of the people i.e.

poor section should be reflected while at present values of high and middle class are

reflected more.

Land acquisition proceedings take pretty long time hampering the development

process.

In summary, more attention is given to the formulation of the plan and less attention to the

implementation.

The Urban Development Plans Formulation and Implementation Guidelines (UDPFI

Guidelines) prepared by team of experts at ITPI in 1996 have also discussed the various

drawbacks of the Master Plan, which are as follows:

It provides a long-term perspective of development, neglecting short-term actions

and objectives; consequently losing its effectiveness in a fast-changing scenario.

It is rigid and static because it is treated as an end product and not as a continuous

process.


29/380



It takes a very long time in its preparation and approval, making it an out-of-date

document even before its implementation. As a consequence, there are frequent

changes in land use.

It lacks symbiosis of socio-economic dynamism and physical determination of a

city.

It lacks integration of physical and fiscal planning efforts.

The norms and standards for land use and provision of facilities are generally high

and very difficult to be achieved at the time of implementation.

The public participation in the planning process is not effective.

Monitoring and review mechanisms are neither regular nor effective.

It emphasises control rather than promotion of development.

Town planning and other related laws such as acquisition of land, are not suitably

amended to adjust to changing socio-economic, techno-economic changes and

development needs.

Development management is generally not efficient.

It hardly caters to the demands of informal sector.

In some cases political interference is observed which results in some irrational

proposals and implementation decisions.

Concluding Remarks

An overview of the current urban planning system as discussed above in this section

highlights few major issues that are mainly responsible for the redundancies in the Master

Plan process. These are summarised below:

Weak Information Base:

Development Plan preparation is undertaken with a very weak information base. As a

statutory requirement only the existing land-use survey is generally carried out. Up to date

information on employment, incomes, environment, household characteristics, transport,

housing etc., is neither readily available nor it is collected through surveys. State level

information systems such as Survey of industries, National Sample Survey, State Income

Estimates, and Employment Market Information do not readily provide city level data.


30/380



Decennial Census is therefore generally the only source of information. As a result the

planning process leads to formulation of proposals based on axiomatic considerations.

Time Consuming Process:

Detailed land-use planning and plan finalization is a time consuming process leading to

delays on account of:

i) Preparation of existing land use survey which is a mandatory requirement

necessitates fresh field surveys every time a Master Plan is prepared, as computer

based GIS which can update the land use based on development permission data

have not yet been adopted. Use of aerial photography or remote sensing in general is

also very limited.

ii) As the Master Plan proposes reservation of lands for public purposes that are to be

compulsorily acquired, owners of such land oppose the plan tooth and nail. This also

leads to corrupt practices of changing land use proposals and cause delays.

iii) Such changes in the plan are then challenged in the court of law causing further

delay.

A major portion of the 20 year plan period thus elapses before the plan becomes effective.

Delinked From Economic And Environmental Issues:

Due to inadequate database, economic and environmental considerations are seldom

seriously addressed in the plan formulation; if at all these issues are only mentioned without

any specific strategies. The impact of Master Plan proposals on land and housing market are

also not explicitly considered. The Master Plan, therefore, does not deal with problems

associated with land policy such as inappropriate regulation, lack of tenure security,

inadequate infrastructure capacity, inadequate information, inappropriate pricing and

taxation, and weak institutions and poorly co-ordinated actors in the land market which lead

to environmental problems through resource degradation, occupation of hazard prone-areas

and excessive urban sprawl (Bernstein, J.D., 1994).


31/380



Unaffordable Infrastructure Investments:

The physical standards adopted in planning of densities, housing, services, etc. are very high.

Most Master Plans thus come out with unaffordable investment requirements without

providing for resources to implement the proposals. Local authorities however continue to

face the resource crunch and are unable to cope up with the needs of growing population and

maintenance of municipal services. Bombay Master Plan till 1991, used such maximum

density and FSI combination that the smallest legal house was unaffordable to the majority.

Growing population of urban areas is generally considered as the root-cause of all urban

problems and measures are suggested in Master Plans to contain population growth. Such

measures do not take into account macroeconomic forces and are often in the form of blanket

controls on location of economic activities which could have serious implications for the

well-being of the city and its people. The second Bombay Master Plan for 1981-2001 had

proposed a population of 9.8 million for 2001 when 1991 population itself had exceeded that

target.

Lack of Investment Strategies:

The strategies for raising resources required for plan implementation are never an integral

part of the plan. The Report on the Development Plan for Greater Bombay, 1964 ends with

the hope of raising financial resources for plan implementation by saying, with little

sacrifice on the part of all citizens and sympathetic attitude of State and Central Governments

towards Corporations problem this plan can be translated into reality.

Land use planning without any link with infrastructure investment leads to a situation

where the investment is driven by the demand of the already developed areas leaving new

expansion areas with inadequate investments. Financial management exercises (budget) are

often carried out by the local governments on yearly basis without any long-term investment

programming and they are not explicitly linked to Master Plan implementation.

Ineffective Public Participation:

These Plans also fail to effectively involve the citizen in the process of development

planning. In the present practice, public suggestion/ objections are invited by giving only a

public notice that too only after the draft plan is prepared. Even in this process the active


32/380



participation is largely confined to land owners whose properties are adversely affected.

Recently however environmental groups which are not necessarily representative are also

becoming vocal. Public participation could be improved by wider publicity, holding of

seminars in local areas, etc. a more meaningful participation can be achieved by modifying

the planning process and involving citizens in local decisions. But a plan dealing with the

city of 20 years hence overlooking the numerous problems of here and now fails to

encourage the common citizen.

Lack of Monitoring Mechanism:

No institutional and information system mechanism generally exists for plan monitoring.

Since the budgetary system does not explicitly take into account the requirements of plan

implementation, problems of resources are not periodically highlighted. The data gathered

for development control are not effectively used to analyse the trend of development in

comparison with Master Plan provisions. Large scale deviations from Master Plan (including

unauthorized developments) therefore remain unresponded till the next Plan.In the absence of

adequate information system, planners ability to respond to changing circumstances gets

further limited. For a common land owner or citizens the Master Plan appears to be very

rigid. This does not however, imply that the plan is never modified. On the contrary the act

allows minor modifications. But in practice only the powerful manage to get such

modifications carried out which may not always be in the public interest.

Based upon the above discussion, it can be observed that planned intervention is imperative

in our urban areas in view of rapid urbanization, haphazard growth resulting in emergence of

slums, squatter colonies and misuse of land. Managing our future cities would depend on

how effective is this planned intervention. Master Plans and Development Plans evolved for

managing our cities have been critically appraised in terms of their contents, potentials and

weaknesses. Despite the fact that there are weaknesses, Master Plan has useful purpose to

serve. Master plan has served well so far as growth and development of cities is concerned;

the distortions in city growth are the result of factors which have lead to nonimplementation

of its proposals or where investment pattern was contrary to that envisaged in the Master


33/380



Plan. Accordingly, we would have to ensure that planning is effectively supported by the

implementation process.

We have to find out ways and means to eliminate the areas of weakness of Master Plan so as

to make it more result oriented. Instead of making the plan highly comprehensive covering

all possible aspects like a mini national development plan, it should focus on critical and key

issues System of land use planning should be adequately supported by including social,

economic and environmental issues. Instead of concentrating on limiting the size, efforts

should be to promote orderly and organized growth of the city. Plan making should be

effectively integrated with the decision making process about budget, infrastructure,

development and service provision. Introduction of more flexibility in the planning process

would further enhance the effectiveness of Master Plan.

2.1.4 PLAN AND POLICIES

With India becoming an independent country in 1947, there was a pressure of urban

population, lack of housing and basic services in urban areas. The problem was compounded

by migration of people from Pakistan. At that time, the general perception of the policy

makers was that, India is pre-dominantly an agricultural and rural economy. Urbanisation

would lead to the drain of resources from the countryside to feed the cities. The positive

aspects of cities as engines of economic growth in the context of national economic policies

were not much appreciated at that time. Problems of urban areas were treated more as

welfare problems and sectors of residual investment rather than as issues of national

economic importance.

In line with a vision of Developed India, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the First Prime Minister of

India, conceptualised the Planning Commission and the Five year plan with the help of the

Government and the eminent economists from different parts of the world. Subsequently, the

Planning Commission was set up by a resolution of the Government of India in 1950.

Considering the urgent need to prevent unregulated growth of the towns, the Five Year Plans

laid stress on the need to undertake town planning to provide for zoning and land use, control

of ribbon development, location of industries, clearance of slums, civic and diagnostic

surveys and preparation of Master plans. It has been observed that although a significant step

in urban development was undertaken in the plan vide Central assistance to the States for the


34/380



preparation of Master Plans for selected areas, comprehensive action was not taken by the

States for the adoption and implementation of the Plans. The priority concern was not only to

stop the growing deterioration in the urban environment, reflected in key urban indicators on

housing conditions, pollution levels, traffic congestion, informal sector, among others, but

also to positively change the trend and ensure an improved, healthy and congenial

environment. It was envisaged that the wide and increasing gap between the demand and

supply of basic civic amenities like potable water, sanitation, transport and housing would be

reduced through creation of new assets, upgradation and renewal of existing assets, attaining

better operational and management efficiency and stimulating flow of resources into all

urban development activities. Since the setting up of the Planning Commission, Five Year

Plans have been brought out at regular intervals with different focus areas. A brief overview

of the various Five Year Plans is given below:

First Five Year Plan (1951-1956):

Emphasis was given on institution building and on construction of houses for Government

employees and weaker sections. The Ministry of Works & Housing was constituted and

National Building Organization and Town & Country Planning Organization were set up. A

sizeable part of the plan outlay was spent for rehabilitation of the refugees from Pakistan and

on building the new city of Chandigarh. Industrial Housing Scheme was also initiated. Centre

subsidized Scheme to the extent of 50% towards the cost of land and construction. A total

outlay of Rs. 136 crores was provided for the Plan.

Second Five Year Plan (1956-1961):

In the Second Five Year Plan, the scope of housing programme for the poor was expanded.

Industrial Housing Scheme was widened to cover all workers. Three new schemes were

introduced, namely, Rural Housing, Slum Clearance and Sweepers Housing. Town &

Country Planning Legislations were enacted in many States and necessary organisations were

also set up for preparation of Master Plans for important towns.


35/380



Third Five Year Plan (1961-1966):

Co-ordination of efforts of all agencies and orienting the programmes to the needs of the

Low Income Groups. Scheme introduced in 1959 to give loans to State Governments for a

period of 10 years for acquisition and development of land in order to make available

building sites in sufficient numbers. Master Plans for major cities were prepared and the

State capitals of Gandhi Nagar and Bhubaneswar were developed in this Plan period. The

plan also gave thoughts about establishing a Central Housing Board.

Fourth Five Year Plan (1969-1974):

In the Fourth Plan, balanced urban growth was high priority. Also it stressed the need to

prevent further growth of population in large cities. The plan envisaged the creation of

smaller towns and by planning the spatial location of economic activity. Housing and Urban

Development Corporation (HUDCO) was established to fund low cost housing and urban

development programmes, promising a quick turnover. Scheme for Environmental

Improvement of Urban Slums was undertaken in the Central Sector from 1972-73, with a

view to provide a minimum level of services like water supply, sewerage, drainage and street

pavements in 11 cities having more than 8 lakhs population. The scheme was later extended

to 9 more cities.

Fifth Five Year Plan (1974-1979):

The Fifth Plan reiterated the policies of the preceding Plans. It proposed to promote smaller

towns in new urban centers in order to ease the increasing pressure on urbanisation. This was

to be supplemented with efforts towards augmentation of civic services in urban areas.

Emphasis was given on a comprehensive and regional approach to problems in metropolitan

cities. Task Force was set up for development of small and medium towns. The Urban Land

(Ceiling & Regulation) Act was enacted to prevent concentration of land holding in urban

areas and to make available urban land for construction of houses for the middle and low

income groups.

Mainly three new approach and programmes were started in this Plan. They are as follows:


36/380



1. Minimum Needs Programme: Provision of house-sites and assistance for the

construction of dwellings for rural landless labourers were proposed in this

programme.

2. Specific efforts were thought to reduce costs in public housing schemes by reviewing

standards and by using cheap and alternative building materials.

3. The National Buildings Organisation, State Housing Boards and the HUDCO plans of

improved design types for use in the rural areas were proposed.

Sixth Five Year Plan (1980-1985):

Thrust was given on integrated provision of services along with shelter, particularly for the

poor. For the first time in the Five Year Plans concern on environment (Water and Air Act -

1974) and upgradation of slum environment was taken into consideration. The Integrated

Development of Small and Medium Towns (IDSMT) was launched in towns with population

below one lakh. This was mainly for provision of roads, pavements, minor civic works, bus

stands, markets, shopping complex etc. with proposed setting up of new industries and

commercial and professional establishments in small, medium and intermediate towns.

For the first time strengthening of the existing institutions like Housing and Urban

Development Corporation (HUDCO) and the creation of new institutions like housing co-

operatives and building societies was thought to be necessary. The expansion of the Housing

Development Finance Corporation (HDFC) type of activities was also considered. While

HUDCO was supposed to concentrate on the provision of subsidised finance to the poorer

sections of the society, the HDFC was to continue to cater to the clientele coming largely

from fairly well-to-do sections of the society.

Seventh Five Year Plan (1985-1990):

The Plan stressed on the need to entrust major responsibility of housing construction on the

private sector. A three-fold role was assigned to the public sector, namely, mobilization for

resources for housing, provision for subsidized housing for the poor and acquisition and

development of land. The National Housing Bank was set up to expand the base of housing

finance. NBO was reconstituted and a new organization called Building Material Technology

Promotion Council (BMTPC) was set up for promoting commercial produc

Documents

Alternative to Master Plan Apporach.unlocked